Russian Paratroopers to Land on Drifting Arctic Ice
Russian Paratroopers to Land on Drifting Arctic Ice
Russian Paratroopers to Land on Drifting Arctic Ice |
Break out the sub, and deploy Hudson & McGoohan.
|
But watch out for Ernest Borgnine, he's a bad un...
|
No need. Their black rucksacks are a dead giveaway.
|
I think that this is archive photo
|
Good Film!
Rock Hudson knows what to do with Russian Paratroopers...
|
Rock Hudson is, of course, number 1 in this nomination. On the intelligence side, I would add Alec Baldwin as a CIA analyst (Jack Ryan) in "The Hunt for Red October" :-)
As for the article, the current Russian defence minister loves shows since his times with the emergency management ministry. Poor polar bears.... |
I recall the tragic occasion some years ago when several jumpers made fatal dents in the Antarctic.
I've always suspected that failure to apply temperature correction to their altimeters caused them to deploy their canopies lower than they intended, with a higher vertical velocity than planned. I trust that our Russian chums won't make a similar error. |
I've always suspected that failure to apply temperature correction to their altimeters caused them to deploy their canopies lower than they intended, with a higher vertical velocity than planned. |
I've always suspected that failure to apply temperature correction to their altimeters caused them to deploy their canopies lower than they intended, with a higher vertical velocity than planned. And for static line jumpers, they don't deploy their canopies at all. It's done for them when they reach the end of the static line. So if the canopies deployed too low, it was because the airplanes they jumped from were too low. Can someone clear up my confusion? |
IIRC it was to do with the failure to notice or to take into account the difference between ground level at the take off point compared to the DZ. |
KenV
Perhaps they didn't want to land at terminal velocity but wanted something more conducive to life?
|
If they land at seal level are they at risk of being eaten by the said seals?
|
I'm confused here. For freefall/HALO jumpers, they are at terminal velocity long long before they get anywhere near the ground, so I don't understand the bit about "higher vertical velocity than planned." |
Since the Russians are jumping onto drifting ice, their DZ is at seal level. So the only way this could be of concern for them is if they take off from an airport well below sea level. Seems unlikely. |
Ken V. Perhaps they didn't want to land at terminal velocity but wanted something more conducive to life? |
Since terminal velocity reduces with altitude, and cold air is denser, I can't imagine why....
|
Ice Statio Zebra also revealed several military secrets, not least of which was the ability of the MiG 21 to fly from a Russian base to a point 320 miles WNW of Nord, Greenland - do 2 low passes, and return safely to base on internal fuel only. Quite a feat in 45 minutes, bet the Lightning couldn't do that :E
|
They better get Clint Eastwood and the Firefox out of there before they arrive.
|
Since terminal velocity reduces with altitude, and cold air is denser, I can't imagine why.... |
Oh my, do RTFP, KenV!
I wrote 'vertical', not 'terminal' velocity. :rolleyes: |
BEagle, he also made the assumption that they had jumped with a sufficiently great altitude to reach TV before planned chute opening. And indeed the TV at altitude will be higher than the TV at chute opening height.
But at a lower height TV may not be achieved before chute opening but as you say, the VV may well be higher than planned. |
It seems to be open season on KenV every day in this forum, doesn't it?
What interests me more are the arrangements to exfil the paratroopers after they land. Any information? |
What interests me more are the arrangements to exfil the paratroopers after they land. Any information? - FODPlod
In the immortal words of the port lookout: "On the beam a submarine On the bow, another cow":D Jack |
Oh my, do RTFP, KenV! I wrote 'vertical', not 'terminal' velocity. I said that for a freefall/HALO jump, vertical velocity at canopy opening IS terminal velocity. I politely stated I was confused and politely asked for clarification. I also said that for a static line jump, canopy opening, and thus vertical velocity, is determined by the length of the static line which is independent of any altimeter the jumper may be wearing. I politely stated I was confused and politely asked for clarification. Thank for your F'ing reply, but it did nothing to clear up my confusion. So I politely ask once again, please clarify my confusion. |
Since terminal velocity reduces with altitude, and cold air is denser, I can't imagine why.... |
KenV - on this side of the pond we have a habit of understating things slightly more than you might be used to.
By "lower than intended" I should imagine BEagle meant "lower than ground level". When descending by parachute, it's desirable to arrive at ground level with a sufficiently low vertical velocity to be able to absorb the impact with one's legs. In this case, the parachutists in question arrived at ground level "with a higher vertical velocity than planned." Does that help? |
1. The plan was to freefall.
2. Then to open the canopy at a certain altitude. 3. At the planned altitude the parachutists would have been at a certain velocity, but not at terminal velocity. 4. If altimeter temperature error correction hadn't been applied in such cold weather, the actual altitude would be lower than planned. 5. Hence the vertical velocity would have been higher than planned. 6. The parachutes would have taken longer to reduce the vertical velocity to the normal parachute descent rate. 7. A combination of lower level and higher vertical speed when the parachutes were deployed might therefore have proved fatal. Did anyone else not understand that line of thought from my original post? As an example, if it was ISA-45 and they'd planned to pull at 500 ft, their actual altitude would have been only 380 ft and depending on the height at which they'd exited, they could have fallen 120 ft further than planned, perhaps accelerating beyond the capability of the parachute to develop fully? |
BEAGLE:
At the planned (opening) altitude the parachutists would have been at a certain velocity, but not at terminal velocity. Did anyone else not understand that line of thought from my original post? |
If it's the incident I'm thinking of, one parachutist deployed too low; two failed to deploy at all.
|
Neither were they military parachutists.....:rolleyes:
|
Ken,
How does the persons weight (with heavy equipment), alter the time it takes to reach terminal velocity? Perhaps there is a new form of gravity I'm not aware of. |
Neither were they military parachutists.....:rolleyes: |
Ken,How does the persons weight (with heavy equipment), alter the time it takes to reach terminal velocity? Perhaps there is a new form of gravity I'm not aware of. Cross sectional density is the primary driver of an object's terminal velocity. Putting heavy equipment on a human body makes the human body more dense which "alters the time it takes to reach terminal velocity". Reducing the cross section (like going straight head down vs spread eagled) also "alters the time it takes to reach terminal velocity." If gravity alone were at work as you suggest (like perhaps on the moon) you would be correct that neither mass nor density would have such an effect. But then there would be no terminal velocity at all and the max velocity from a free fall would be the escape velocity. |
Ken,
I beg to differ. Two objects with identical Cd and frontal area, but with differing mass, will fall at exactly the same rate. |
I beg to differ. Two objects with identical Cd and frontal area, but with differing mass, will fall at exactly the same rate. Terminal velocity is reached when the drag force equals the mass force. It is a very simple balancing equation. If the Cd and frontal area are identical, their drag is identical and the resulting drag force will be identical for any given speed. Since one object is heavier, the mass force of one object will be greater than the other. Since they have identical drag force, the heavier object must have higher terminal velocity. It is very simple and basic math. |
Originally Posted by Union Jack
What interests me more are the arrangements to exfil the paratroopers after they land. Any information? - FODPlod
In the immortal words of the port lookout: "On the beam a submarine On the bow, another cow" Jack I'd be very interested in reading the source of your information, please? |
I'd be very interested in reading the source of your information, please?
My apologies, FODPlod - I was of course having a bit of fun in the spirit of "Ice Station Zebra", and hence the:D Jack |
Cor. What a lot I've learned.
Terminal velocity Cd Mass Drag Force Cross Sectional Density Everyday is a school day. The biggest thing I've learned though Russian Paratroopers to Land on Drifting Arctic Ice All of them are F'ing barmy. |
I hope the RAF paras are ok
RAF parachute instructors collided mid air during training jump - Mirror Online |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.